There a few things on my mind about the healthcare debate. First, I am troubled by the “you lie” incident during the President’s speech on healthcare. I am troubled that our President was intentionally misleading us. The Democrats in Congress had already acted to remove provisions to screen out undocumented immigrants. The President’s words may have been accurate, but they were misleading. I am troubled that an elected member of Congress would demonstrate such lack of control and disrespect for others. [I am myself given to inappropriate audible expressions of “Lord help us” when I am frustrated with events in public worship.] This isn’t England where they have universal healthcare and members of Parliament are expected to shout out objections to speeches: apologies given, apologies accepted, stereotypes reinforced, Democrats gain ground, and the beat goes on.
I am troubled by what appears to be a growing animosity toward undocumented immigrants. I am a conservative because I am convinced sin is a present reality that must be resisted [the problems of society can not be solved by simply throwing money at them; I say “resisted” because I am speaking of social order and not soteriology which calls for a more comprehensive approach to sin] and because I believe we have a responsibility to preserve and pass on the core values of our heritage. Among those values is personal liberty from an intrusive government. I am alarmed at the left’s absence of concern for this fundamental American value. On the other hand, I am more alarmed at the hatred I hear coming from the right. The founders of our great nation built their political philosophy on a declaration that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Recognizing that immigration is a complex issue and that we are a society governed by laws, I must assert there is a higher law than that established by legislative bodies. That law demands that we love aliens, strangers, and even our enemies. The Word of God is clear, we have an obligation to care for the weak, the oppressed, the widowed, and orphans and the “alien that lives among” us. We must separate our attitudes about poor imigration laws and practices from our affections for the immigrant among us. We will be judged by God for how we treat them. How vile is it to segragate children whose only crime is that their parents entered this country without documentation, to cut them off from the fundamentals of education and healthcare? We will reap what we sow.
In my conservative opinion, I do not want a healthcare system where I must present documentation of legal residency before I get treatment. [I am for this reason concerned about a national digitized system of medical records. The system might save money, but if it is under government control we are losing freedom to save money.] I do not want a system that by its very nature segragates people into those with rights for health care and those without those rights, especially children. True conservatives value life and human dignity; they struggle for justice and equality in the eyes of the law. True conservatives do not scapegoat the weakest amongst us for purposes of personal security.
If we do not have a resurgence of compassionate conservativism (the only real conservativism) in the GOP I will have to withdraw from the two-party system.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obama's Speech on Health Care
President Obama’s speech to the joint houses of Congress last evening highlighted his considerable strengths and a couple of his inconsistencies. In it he demonstrated his great skills in oration. He also exposed his pragmatic approach to politics. For what it’s worth, I thought it was an excellent speech and I agreed with most of the points he raised.
I agree “it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t…” I appreciate his even handed assessment of the political wrangling in congress. ”Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise… a blizzard of charges and counter charges…”
His stated goals are laudable: provide security and stability for those who have health insurance, provide insurance for those who don’t, and slow the growth of healthcare costs.
His proposals for laws to protect the insured from unjust practices by the insurance companies are long overdue. I would like to see him add a law to ensure that once someone has insurance they can remain a member of that group for as long as they wish (and pay the premiums), i.e, once they get a policy with a group they can never be expelled from that group even if they loose their job.
However, in addressing those who have insurance it is misleading for him to say, “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” The contents of the plan might not require a change but the fruit of the plan might make it inevitable. However healthcare is overhauled it will result in major changes for most Americans. His plan may well create an environment where companies cannot afford to compete with a government sponsored program.
To the degree I understand the concept an “insurance exchange” it sounds great. As a conservative, I would prefer such a program be run as a non-government, non-profit co-op (love those hyphenated words). In fact there could be multiple co-ops, sort of like credit unions. The articles of incorporation for these non-profits could require them to accept any applicant fitting their demographic/geographic designation. The government could provide vouchers for the poor.
And as I wrote last year, I agree with Obama that it is time we move to mandatory health insurance. Persons without insurance create an unnecessary risk to society, warranting this intrusion on our personal freedoms. [If they get sick or have an accident they will be treated and the rest will pay for it.] The only exception I could imagine would be for those who for reasons of religious faith refuse medical care. However, I would prefer the individual states be incentivized to pass such legislation.
My difficulties with the speech are two fold: the fiscal viability of the plan and the occasional combative tone. The nebulous numbers just don’t add up. I don’t believe this plan will only cost a trillion dollars over ten years. I don’t believe the projected savings will be as great as he promises. I don’t believe once programs are put in place Congress will live within the financial restraints the President wants put into place.
Concerning the tone, I am referring both to his presentation and the content. He was at times a little too forceful in his presentation but that may just be me. Certainly his delivery was effective in communicating his passion for this project. In content he stepped over the line on at least one occasion. As I noted last fall in a discussion on negative political advertisements, Obama has mastered the art of making his opponents look guilty while his practices are the same as theirs. I am referring to his denunciation of those prominent politicians [a.k.a. Sarah Palin] who he said have lied in saying his plan would “set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.” I have no need to defend Sara Palin; I find her guilty of fear mongering (not always a bad thing). The language I have heard her use is “creation of death panels” which will determine who gets treatment. The argument is that these panels will determine whether grandma gets treatment to prolong life at the expense of others who might be able to live longer, more productive lives. My point is I have not heard a prominent politician say the plan will create a bureaucracy with power to “kill off senior citizens.” The distinction may seem insignificant but I find it troubling. Obama is calling for civilized discussion that avoids lies and distortions. His reframing of the language of others exaggerates their statements in a pejorative way. In short, he is misrepresenting their misrepresentation of him. At the very least it calls into question his commitment to an open and civil dialogue.
I offer some final observations. The speech skillfully incorporated concepts and proposals from persons across the political spectrum creating an illusion of compromise and cooperation. It is interesting to me that one of the least specific of his proposals was a gratuitous reference to tort reform. As I re-read the paragraph it hit me he made no real commitment for change. I also find his appeal to the character of America revealing; our history is one of fierce commitment to freedom and compassion. This tension thrusts us into a quest for the proper balance for government control and personal freedom. It demands we change by solving our problems or we will “loose something essential about ourselves.” He is a true pragmatist with a nod toward Hegel’s dialectic. The most revealing paragraph of his speech (I think) is here given in entirety.
“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”
Finally, having listened to and read the speech I am struck with how little I know about the details of the various bills bouncing around Congress. Will the bureaucracies be enlarged? What powers to control our personal medical options will be delegated to boards and commissions? I would that this was simply a debate about whether to provide health insurance to those who can not afford it; I could support that (but then again we already have Medicaid). If it was simply about insurance reform I might could get a better handel on the debate. But this is about all aspects of our healthcare system and no one seems to know everything that is being proposed. How can I endorse this plan when I don't even know what is in it? How can I not be leery of an unknown plan that might drastically change our society in undetemined ways? What I need now is not a speech to convince me to trust the President and Congress to implement the appropriate change for our times; what I need is a good, open, honest description of the changes being proposed. I am not getting it from the left or the right.
I agree “it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t…” I appreciate his even handed assessment of the political wrangling in congress. ”Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise… a blizzard of charges and counter charges…”
His stated goals are laudable: provide security and stability for those who have health insurance, provide insurance for those who don’t, and slow the growth of healthcare costs.
His proposals for laws to protect the insured from unjust practices by the insurance companies are long overdue. I would like to see him add a law to ensure that once someone has insurance they can remain a member of that group for as long as they wish (and pay the premiums), i.e, once they get a policy with a group they can never be expelled from that group even if they loose their job.
However, in addressing those who have insurance it is misleading for him to say, “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” The contents of the plan might not require a change but the fruit of the plan might make it inevitable. However healthcare is overhauled it will result in major changes for most Americans. His plan may well create an environment where companies cannot afford to compete with a government sponsored program.
To the degree I understand the concept an “insurance exchange” it sounds great. As a conservative, I would prefer such a program be run as a non-government, non-profit co-op (love those hyphenated words). In fact there could be multiple co-ops, sort of like credit unions. The articles of incorporation for these non-profits could require them to accept any applicant fitting their demographic/geographic designation. The government could provide vouchers for the poor.
And as I wrote last year, I agree with Obama that it is time we move to mandatory health insurance. Persons without insurance create an unnecessary risk to society, warranting this intrusion on our personal freedoms. [If they get sick or have an accident they will be treated and the rest will pay for it.] The only exception I could imagine would be for those who for reasons of religious faith refuse medical care. However, I would prefer the individual states be incentivized to pass such legislation.
My difficulties with the speech are two fold: the fiscal viability of the plan and the occasional combative tone. The nebulous numbers just don’t add up. I don’t believe this plan will only cost a trillion dollars over ten years. I don’t believe the projected savings will be as great as he promises. I don’t believe once programs are put in place Congress will live within the financial restraints the President wants put into place.
Concerning the tone, I am referring both to his presentation and the content. He was at times a little too forceful in his presentation but that may just be me. Certainly his delivery was effective in communicating his passion for this project. In content he stepped over the line on at least one occasion. As I noted last fall in a discussion on negative political advertisements, Obama has mastered the art of making his opponents look guilty while his practices are the same as theirs. I am referring to his denunciation of those prominent politicians [a.k.a. Sarah Palin] who he said have lied in saying his plan would “set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.” I have no need to defend Sara Palin; I find her guilty of fear mongering (not always a bad thing). The language I have heard her use is “creation of death panels” which will determine who gets treatment. The argument is that these panels will determine whether grandma gets treatment to prolong life at the expense of others who might be able to live longer, more productive lives. My point is I have not heard a prominent politician say the plan will create a bureaucracy with power to “kill off senior citizens.” The distinction may seem insignificant but I find it troubling. Obama is calling for civilized discussion that avoids lies and distortions. His reframing of the language of others exaggerates their statements in a pejorative way. In short, he is misrepresenting their misrepresentation of him. At the very least it calls into question his commitment to an open and civil dialogue.
I offer some final observations. The speech skillfully incorporated concepts and proposals from persons across the political spectrum creating an illusion of compromise and cooperation. It is interesting to me that one of the least specific of his proposals was a gratuitous reference to tort reform. As I re-read the paragraph it hit me he made no real commitment for change. I also find his appeal to the character of America revealing; our history is one of fierce commitment to freedom and compassion. This tension thrusts us into a quest for the proper balance for government control and personal freedom. It demands we change by solving our problems or we will “loose something essential about ourselves.” He is a true pragmatist with a nod toward Hegel’s dialectic. The most revealing paragraph of his speech (I think) is here given in entirety.
“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”
Finally, having listened to and read the speech I am struck with how little I know about the details of the various bills bouncing around Congress. Will the bureaucracies be enlarged? What powers to control our personal medical options will be delegated to boards and commissions? I would that this was simply a debate about whether to provide health insurance to those who can not afford it; I could support that (but then again we already have Medicaid). If it was simply about insurance reform I might could get a better handel on the debate. But this is about all aspects of our healthcare system and no one seems to know everything that is being proposed. How can I endorse this plan when I don't even know what is in it? How can I not be leery of an unknown plan that might drastically change our society in undetemined ways? What I need now is not a speech to convince me to trust the President and Congress to implement the appropriate change for our times; what I need is a good, open, honest description of the changes being proposed. I am not getting it from the left or the right.
Monday, April 27, 2009
In My Youth Guest Speakers at Church
In My Youth Guest Speakers at Church
Were the Most Entertaining
We had frequent “special speakers” at church when I was a child. Most were evangelists who came to preach revivals. Revivals lasted two or more weeks and services were conducted seven days a week. Evangelists came in a variety of types and styles. First, there were fiery preachers who moved around the auditorium telling stories designed to convince us Jonathan Edwards was correct in his portrayal of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” They were intense and loud in presentation. Except for occasional pauses to catch their breath, the preacher gathered us into his sermon like passengers on a runaway freight train, everything building speed until we all crashed into the altar.
A second type of evangelist was the “prophecy preacher.” These tended to be mature men who came with huge charts portraying the Daniel’s visions and the great images of the Book of Revelation: the whore of Babylon, the four horsemen, the seven-headed beast, and the Great White Throne Judgment, etc.. They tied together the Old Testament prophesies with those in the New Testament like a seamless garment. To quote Brother James Slay (describing his younger self) these orators could “delve into the indelible, explain the inexplicable, and scrute the inscrutable.” They didn’t have to shout and run around, their images and oratory skill gathered us and transported us into the end of time. I wonder what they could have done with animation and modern projectors; surely it would be more than we could handle.
There were other types. “Lady evangelists” were especially gifted wooing us into the presence of God, like a mother hen gathering her chickens into the comfort of God’s glory. “Prophetic preachers” who came to report on great visions and dreams God had given them. I remember one came in the mid sixties to warn us that God was judging America for our sins and Ted Kennedy would be our next President. He came back after Richard Nixon was elected with another word from God; it seems the Almighty had heard our prayers and repented of His plans. He had given us a God-fearing, Protestant who would lead our nation in a righteous direction. I lost track of him after that.
There were also frequent guest speakers who were there just for the Sunday morning service or possibly morning and evening. Because we were one of the larger churches in the movement, denominational officials sometimes filled the pulpit. Also, when the pastor was away for Camp Meeting, the General Assembly or vacation, he would have local preachers fill in for him. It was these special speakers that I most looked forward to hearing.
James Cross, our State Overseer and later our General Overseer, captivated me with his deep voice and at a critical time in my development enticed me into theological reflection; he made Christianity more than a collection of stories and emotions. Our faith also included sound doctrines about God.
Sister Deana Lee was another favorite. She was frequently called upon to fill the pulpit when the pastor was out of town. Her personal presence was impressive. Often dressed in white, flowing dresses with impeccable posture and mesmerizing intonation, she was a teacher and exhorter. With the benefit of time, it is impossible for me not to see her as having modeled her ministry on Aimee Simple McPherson, and to think to some extent of her as a (less zany) kindred spirit with Kathryn Kuhlman. Mostly, I think of her fondly because she was one of only a few women allowed to break the Bread of Life and in so doing she helped instill in me a belief women should not be restricted in service to God. (Of course my mother was my primary model for the liberation of women.)
Finally, my all-time favorite guest preacher was Brother J. T. (Jake) Roberts. Brother Roberts had been a prominent pastor and State Overseer for the Church of God. In my childhood he was the National Overseer for the “Colored Work” which was headquartered in Jacksonville. This made it convenient for him to visit our services on occasion and thus to fill the pulpit. I believe he had at one time (prior to my birth) served as pastor of the Springfield Church of God.
He was a figure larger than life, cloaked in lore of quixotic behavior made believable by his own accounts and actions. Pentecostalism was rife with stories of the phenomenal, persons with no musical training playing the piano perfectly under the unction of the Spirit or worshippers going to the heaters and withdrawing a handful of flaming coals to hold up before the Lord. The story was told that after the church converted to central heat Brother Roberts would remove a light bulb from its socket and insert his finger as a demonstration of God’s power.
His raspy voice was heavy with a southern drawl and further fashioned by association with the distinct dialect of southern Blacks. His sermons were one-person theater, dramas of Scriptural stories and personal anecdotes woven into a single presentation. He performed the message with his whole being. He did not limit this embodiment to wild gesticulation; He made props out of whatever was at hand. On one occasion as he proclaimed “He will cast your sins as far as the east is from the west” he frisbeed a hymnal over our heads sailing it into the back wall with a thump. On another he reported confronting the Devil “Get thee behind me Satan” slinging a convenient folding chair across the width of the platform.
Jake Roberts was a showman for Jesus. He was entertaining. He was passionate. He was fun. He was serious. He was never boring. His presence was known. The last time I saw him was around 1974; he was standing on the campus of Lee College in front of one of the women’s dorms, leaning on a cane, dressed in brightly colored striped pants, a polka dotted pink and purple shirt, white shoes, and a checkered hat. Nothing matched, but neither could you ignore the elderly gentleman who gave the strange ensemble both flair and dignity.
Deep inside of me is a little Jake Roberts. I had not made the connection until now, but when I talk to my alter ego I call myself Jake. One day I shall dress as I please, say what I want and let my passion for Christ overwhelm my need to represent Him with dignity.
Were the Most Entertaining
We had frequent “special speakers” at church when I was a child. Most were evangelists who came to preach revivals. Revivals lasted two or more weeks and services were conducted seven days a week. Evangelists came in a variety of types and styles. First, there were fiery preachers who moved around the auditorium telling stories designed to convince us Jonathan Edwards was correct in his portrayal of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” They were intense and loud in presentation. Except for occasional pauses to catch their breath, the preacher gathered us into his sermon like passengers on a runaway freight train, everything building speed until we all crashed into the altar.
A second type of evangelist was the “prophecy preacher.” These tended to be mature men who came with huge charts portraying the Daniel’s visions and the great images of the Book of Revelation: the whore of Babylon, the four horsemen, the seven-headed beast, and the Great White Throne Judgment, etc.. They tied together the Old Testament prophesies with those in the New Testament like a seamless garment. To quote Brother James Slay (describing his younger self) these orators could “delve into the indelible, explain the inexplicable, and scrute the inscrutable.” They didn’t have to shout and run around, their images and oratory skill gathered us and transported us into the end of time. I wonder what they could have done with animation and modern projectors; surely it would be more than we could handle.
There were other types. “Lady evangelists” were especially gifted wooing us into the presence of God, like a mother hen gathering her chickens into the comfort of God’s glory. “Prophetic preachers” who came to report on great visions and dreams God had given them. I remember one came in the mid sixties to warn us that God was judging America for our sins and Ted Kennedy would be our next President. He came back after Richard Nixon was elected with another word from God; it seems the Almighty had heard our prayers and repented of His plans. He had given us a God-fearing, Protestant who would lead our nation in a righteous direction. I lost track of him after that.
There were also frequent guest speakers who were there just for the Sunday morning service or possibly morning and evening. Because we were one of the larger churches in the movement, denominational officials sometimes filled the pulpit. Also, when the pastor was away for Camp Meeting, the General Assembly or vacation, he would have local preachers fill in for him. It was these special speakers that I most looked forward to hearing.
James Cross, our State Overseer and later our General Overseer, captivated me with his deep voice and at a critical time in my development enticed me into theological reflection; he made Christianity more than a collection of stories and emotions. Our faith also included sound doctrines about God.
Sister Deana Lee was another favorite. She was frequently called upon to fill the pulpit when the pastor was out of town. Her personal presence was impressive. Often dressed in white, flowing dresses with impeccable posture and mesmerizing intonation, she was a teacher and exhorter. With the benefit of time, it is impossible for me not to see her as having modeled her ministry on Aimee Simple McPherson, and to think to some extent of her as a (less zany) kindred spirit with Kathryn Kuhlman. Mostly, I think of her fondly because she was one of only a few women allowed to break the Bread of Life and in so doing she helped instill in me a belief women should not be restricted in service to God. (Of course my mother was my primary model for the liberation of women.)
Finally, my all-time favorite guest preacher was Brother J. T. (Jake) Roberts. Brother Roberts had been a prominent pastor and State Overseer for the Church of God. In my childhood he was the National Overseer for the “Colored Work” which was headquartered in Jacksonville. This made it convenient for him to visit our services on occasion and thus to fill the pulpit. I believe he had at one time (prior to my birth) served as pastor of the Springfield Church of God.
He was a figure larger than life, cloaked in lore of quixotic behavior made believable by his own accounts and actions. Pentecostalism was rife with stories of the phenomenal, persons with no musical training playing the piano perfectly under the unction of the Spirit or worshippers going to the heaters and withdrawing a handful of flaming coals to hold up before the Lord. The story was told that after the church converted to central heat Brother Roberts would remove a light bulb from its socket and insert his finger as a demonstration of God’s power.
His raspy voice was heavy with a southern drawl and further fashioned by association with the distinct dialect of southern Blacks. His sermons were one-person theater, dramas of Scriptural stories and personal anecdotes woven into a single presentation. He performed the message with his whole being. He did not limit this embodiment to wild gesticulation; He made props out of whatever was at hand. On one occasion as he proclaimed “He will cast your sins as far as the east is from the west” he frisbeed a hymnal over our heads sailing it into the back wall with a thump. On another he reported confronting the Devil “Get thee behind me Satan” slinging a convenient folding chair across the width of the platform.
Jake Roberts was a showman for Jesus. He was entertaining. He was passionate. He was fun. He was serious. He was never boring. His presence was known. The last time I saw him was around 1974; he was standing on the campus of Lee College in front of one of the women’s dorms, leaning on a cane, dressed in brightly colored striped pants, a polka dotted pink and purple shirt, white shoes, and a checkered hat. Nothing matched, but neither could you ignore the elderly gentleman who gave the strange ensemble both flair and dignity.
Deep inside of me is a little Jake Roberts. I had not made the connection until now, but when I talk to my alter ego I call myself Jake. One day I shall dress as I please, say what I want and let my passion for Christ overwhelm my need to represent Him with dignity.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Prayers of My Youth
Prayers of My Youth
In my youth I prayed
“Lord, break me,
Melt me,
Mold me,
And shape me;
Make me into all you want me to be.
I am the least of your kingdom,
But surely you can use me.
Search me and know me.
Cleanse me.
Purify my soul.
Burn out the dross.
Purge me with hyssop.
Somehow make me an instrument
Of Your glory and honor.
Make me fit for your kingdom,
If only worthy of the shadow of Your passing.
Help me serve you.
That’s all I ask.”
Little did I know
The path I would walk;
How excited prayers for perfection
Could morph into pleas for survival.
I had assumed it all quick and simple.
Death, new life, direction and certainty,
Infused in but a moment.
Sincerity in surrender
Was all He would require.
Instead, I found my Father
More patient than I,
More willing to suffer with me
Than I with Him.
I could not know the cost of my quest,
The anvils of my breaking,
The furnaces of my undoing,
The presses of my forming.
Neither could I know
Brokenness would not expose
The purity I had imagined.
In the crevices of my soul
Grew leaven unknown.
Stains thought to be
Under the blood
Surfaced in the light
Of His Word.
How could I know
Melting is slow;
Dross lingers long;
Dreams of valor vanish;
Hope for survival would seem enough.
Bold prayers of surrender
Become petitions for help,
Then desperate screams for a deliverer.
“Jesus of Nazareth,
Thou Son of David,
Have mercy on me.
Help me! Help me!
Help me, if you can.”
I did not know his hammer and His anvil
Would be persons whom I knew,
Disappointments, betrayal;
His smelting pot
The altar of service,
Ministry in His Name.
If I knew then
What I know now,
Would I pray the same?
Would I plead the glory of His Name?
Would I offer
“All that I am,
All that I have,
All I hope to be.
They are Yours Oh Lord.
Not my will
But Thine be done.”
Yes, moving now from the summer
To the autumn of my life,
Considering all that has gone before,
I cannot but pray
“Jesus use me
Oh Lord don’t refuse me.
Whatever it takes
Make me into all
You desire me to be.
Help me serve you.
That’s all that I ask.”
JDJ
April 3, 2009
In my youth I prayed
“Lord, break me,
Melt me,
Mold me,
And shape me;
Make me into all you want me to be.
I am the least of your kingdom,
But surely you can use me.
Search me and know me.
Cleanse me.
Purify my soul.
Burn out the dross.
Purge me with hyssop.
Somehow make me an instrument
Of Your glory and honor.
Make me fit for your kingdom,
If only worthy of the shadow of Your passing.
Help me serve you.
That’s all I ask.”
Little did I know
The path I would walk;
How excited prayers for perfection
Could morph into pleas for survival.
I had assumed it all quick and simple.
Death, new life, direction and certainty,
Infused in but a moment.
Sincerity in surrender
Was all He would require.
Instead, I found my Father
More patient than I,
More willing to suffer with me
Than I with Him.
I could not know the cost of my quest,
The anvils of my breaking,
The furnaces of my undoing,
The presses of my forming.
Neither could I know
Brokenness would not expose
The purity I had imagined.
In the crevices of my soul
Grew leaven unknown.
Stains thought to be
Under the blood
Surfaced in the light
Of His Word.
How could I know
Melting is slow;
Dross lingers long;
Dreams of valor vanish;
Hope for survival would seem enough.
Bold prayers of surrender
Become petitions for help,
Then desperate screams for a deliverer.
“Jesus of Nazareth,
Thou Son of David,
Have mercy on me.
Help me! Help me!
Help me, if you can.”
I did not know his hammer and His anvil
Would be persons whom I knew,
Disappointments, betrayal;
His smelting pot
The altar of service,
Ministry in His Name.
If I knew then
What I know now,
Would I pray the same?
Would I plead the glory of His Name?
Would I offer
“All that I am,
All that I have,
All I hope to be.
They are Yours Oh Lord.
Not my will
But Thine be done.”
Yes, moving now from the summer
To the autumn of my life,
Considering all that has gone before,
I cannot but pray
“Jesus use me
Oh Lord don’t refuse me.
Whatever it takes
Make me into all
You desire me to be.
Help me serve you.
That’s all that I ask.”
JDJ
April 3, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Make Your Redemption Complete!
I have lately reflected on the enormity of God's grace and the fullness of time. Redemption will be complete when the redeemed with all of their weaknesses are swallowed up in His strength. The following reflects those thoughts.
Make Your Redemption Complete!
Father,
You hold all things together,
You make all things new.
Your redemption is perfect.
Purchased out of death
Unto life, abundant life,
Our destiny is purity and perfection,
Not a static state of flawless existence.
Rather, a dynamic embrace of all we have known
And all we will forever be discovering.
Yet I scarce believe you will transform
My brokenness into wholeness
My pain into pleasure
My sorrow into joy
Betrayal into fidelity
Evil into good.
Can these dry bones live?
Can they behold the beauty
Of Your consuming face?
Can they declare the glory
Of your life-giving Spirit?
Can they pulse with the beat
Of Your pure heart?
Embrace the flow
Of Your boundless love?
Can they be transfigured
Into Your glorious image?
Can they know
As they are known?
Will all things be made new?
Will my memories remain
And yet be transformed?
Can these thoughts enjoy transubstantiation?
Can all that I am, all I have known,
Be engulfed in Your beauty?
What grace must you apply
To the emptiness of my being
That I might fit into the fullness
Of Yours?
Let every thought be imprisoned
To Your Majesty
Every recollection made factual and true
Every pain a song of Your goodness
Every disappointment a hymn of Your faithfulness
Every hint of death a proclamation of Your life
Every betrayal a revelation of Your faithfulness.
Let every fiber of my being
From the time you wove me together
In my mother’s womb
Through every breadth I have drawn
Every joy and every sorrow
Past, Present, and Future
For as long as I am
Proclaim boldly Your greatness
Your faithfulness
Your beauty
Your grace.
Savior,
At your appearance,
May I sing in harmony with the symphony of Your creation.
Breathed upon by your Holy Spirit,
May I dance that flawless dance
As the redeemed move in the splendor of Your presence.
In that day all that is shall give You glory
The pit will sing of the majesty of Your holy mountain,
Hell itself will proclaim the splendor of Heaven.
Judgment will your grace reveal.
The damned will bear witness to your mercy,
In Your presence, consumed by your absence
Touched by your love without end
Unable to respond.
And so we plea,
Come quickly Lord Jesus
Fill all things with Your presence
Make all things new
Make Your Redemption Complete!
Jackie David Johns
February 19, 2009
Make Your Redemption Complete!
Father,
You hold all things together,
You make all things new.
Your redemption is perfect.
Purchased out of death
Unto life, abundant life,
Our destiny is purity and perfection,
Not a static state of flawless existence.
Rather, a dynamic embrace of all we have known
And all we will forever be discovering.
Yet I scarce believe you will transform
My brokenness into wholeness
My pain into pleasure
My sorrow into joy
Betrayal into fidelity
Evil into good.
Can these dry bones live?
Can they behold the beauty
Of Your consuming face?
Can they declare the glory
Of your life-giving Spirit?
Can they pulse with the beat
Of Your pure heart?
Embrace the flow
Of Your boundless love?
Can they be transfigured
Into Your glorious image?
Can they know
As they are known?
Will all things be made new?
Will my memories remain
And yet be transformed?
Can these thoughts enjoy transubstantiation?
Can all that I am, all I have known,
Be engulfed in Your beauty?
What grace must you apply
To the emptiness of my being
That I might fit into the fullness
Of Yours?
Let every thought be imprisoned
To Your Majesty
Every recollection made factual and true
Every pain a song of Your goodness
Every disappointment a hymn of Your faithfulness
Every hint of death a proclamation of Your life
Every betrayal a revelation of Your faithfulness.
Let every fiber of my being
From the time you wove me together
In my mother’s womb
Through every breadth I have drawn
Every joy and every sorrow
Past, Present, and Future
For as long as I am
Proclaim boldly Your greatness
Your faithfulness
Your beauty
Your grace.
Savior,
At your appearance,
May I sing in harmony with the symphony of Your creation.
Breathed upon by your Holy Spirit,
May I dance that flawless dance
As the redeemed move in the splendor of Your presence.
In that day all that is shall give You glory
The pit will sing of the majesty of Your holy mountain,
Hell itself will proclaim the splendor of Heaven.
Judgment will your grace reveal.
The damned will bear witness to your mercy,
In Your presence, consumed by your absence
Touched by your love without end
Unable to respond.
And so we plea,
Come quickly Lord Jesus
Fill all things with Your presence
Make all things new
Make Your Redemption Complete!
Jackie David Johns
February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama's Tax Problems
What’s happening? President Obama now has had three top appointees with tax problems, i.e. unpaid taxes. Combined with one person for which he had to wave his own ethics standards concerning lobbyists, this makes four highly questionable appointments. I am disappointed. I expected him to have a couple of bumps in the confirmation road, but I expected a smoother confirmation process.
What is most troubling for me is that Obama was apparently aware of these problems (at least for three of the four) before he named the appointees. He oversaw a thorough vetting process and opted to proceed because he believed the individuals were the best persons for the respective offices. This reveals a few things. First, his pragmatic essentialism (see an earlier post) combined with an element of over confidence can lead to unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement to suspend the rules. (“If I think these are the best persons for the job, what’s the problem?”)
Second, our new president has promised to inaugurate a higher standard for government but his actions suggest he does not understand there must be a connection between his words and his appointments. He promised us better than this and he has broken his promise. I truly thought he would be more careful, more principled, concerning these commitments. I realize I am holding him to a high standard, but it is the standard he set for himself.
Finally, I didn’t expect him to waist political currency on so much so early. He embarrassed himself and brought into doubt his decision-making processes. But only his opponents are paying attention at this point. He still has overwhelming good will. In the large scope of things these stumbles are minor and they should have little bearing on his presidency. They are indicators of his leadership style: decisive, determined, task oriented, but with an element of tunnel vision.
What is most troubling for me is that Obama was apparently aware of these problems (at least for three of the four) before he named the appointees. He oversaw a thorough vetting process and opted to proceed because he believed the individuals were the best persons for the respective offices. This reveals a few things. First, his pragmatic essentialism (see an earlier post) combined with an element of over confidence can lead to unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement to suspend the rules. (“If I think these are the best persons for the job, what’s the problem?”)
Second, our new president has promised to inaugurate a higher standard for government but his actions suggest he does not understand there must be a connection between his words and his appointments. He promised us better than this and he has broken his promise. I truly thought he would be more careful, more principled, concerning these commitments. I realize I am holding him to a high standard, but it is the standard he set for himself.
Finally, I didn’t expect him to waist political currency on so much so early. He embarrassed himself and brought into doubt his decision-making processes. But only his opponents are paying attention at this point. He still has overwhelming good will. In the large scope of things these stumbles are minor and they should have little bearing on his presidency. They are indicators of his leadership style: decisive, determined, task oriented, but with an element of tunnel vision.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Obama’s First Ten Days In The White House
I recently received a call from my friend Phil Hoover who asked why I had not yet commented on the Obama presidency. I said I just had not had the time. He suggested I write shorter pieces. I’m not certain I can, but I’ll try.
In November I made several predictions about an Obama presidency. So far I was fairly on target. The following seem relevant to his efforts so far.
“Prediction #1: The transition will be nearly flawless. The fly in the ointment might be if Obama is perceived as acting as if he is already President especially in international economic affairs. Obama’s appointments will be diverse representatives of the sectors that elected him with more than one moderate Republicans in high positions. He will get off to a good start.”
I hit this nail on the head. His transition was nearly flawless. He took great care not to comment on international relations, frequently commenting on the fact that we only have one President at the time. On the other hand, on the economic crises he worked with Congress as if he was already President. The situation may have dictated his proactive involvement, but let us not ignore the fact he work with Congress on the formation of legislation as though he was already President. And in today’s economy that has everything to do with international relations.
“Prediction #2: Obama will keep many of his promises. With the support of a Democratically controlled congress, he will claim a mandate to push through his agenda. There will be a flurry of passed legislation. At the front will be commitments to energy and the environment. …”
He has hit the ground running with a focus on keeping his promises. He has apponinted several Republicans to high level positions. He has had extensive communicaton with the Republicans in Congress in an apparent effort to be bipartisan but he has reminded them that he won the election. I will not review all of his kept promises but a couple stand out. First, I applaud his quick actions on the environment especially raising the auto gas standards. I also approve of his push to allow states to set their own standards. As a conservative, I favor keeping government as responsive to the people as possible, i.e, a smaller federal government.
Second, while I didn’t include it on my list, elsewhere I predicted he would keep his promise and issue a Presidential order releasing American tax dollars to international groups to promote and pay for abortions in other countries, which he has done. I hold everyone who voted for Obama accountable for the resulting infanticide. Those who voted for him knew he had made this promise; their vote implicitly endorsed this action. I recognize this is a strong statement, but my statement pales in comparison to the impact of this action on the unborn and on their mothers. In many of the countries where these funds will be released it will not be the woman who makes the decision about aborting her unborn child. Time will tell if Obama’s other actions for good (there will be many) might mitigate against the impact of this evil. Perhaps he will be an instrument for life in other areas.
“Prediction #8: President Obama will excel in international relations except Islamic nations, Russia, and Latin America (which will be put off by his protectionism). In short, he will be phenomenal with our Western Allies and most of Africa; he will be less than stellar with our enemies, especially Islamic nations. This will seem strange to many given his unique connection with Islam. I truly hope I am wrong on this. He has the best personal gifts for diplomacy that I have seen in a political leader. (My problem is not his ability, but his direction.)”
It was a bold stroke to grant his first post-inauguration interview with an international, Islamic journalist. This was a significant preemptive diplomatic action. The appointment of Senator Mitchell as envoy to the Middle East was another wise action in his early days in office. On the other hand, his approval of continued military air strikes inside Pakistan (Prediction #10) suggests I might in the end be right on this one. He has not yet been tested with a crisis in the region to which he must respond.
Another promise he has kept is to initiate stricter ethics standards for his administration. It is to be applauded that he has forbidden the revolving door between lobbyist and administrative service. It is baffling that he would immediately nominate someone for high office for whom he must immediately issue a waiver to the standards he had just announced with fanfare. His pragmatic nature shines through.
On a parallel note I was apparently correct with “Prediction #12: The roll of minorities in American politics has been forever changed for the good. The days of the Caucasian, good-old-boys-club-in-power is over. Minorities will rise in leadership in both parties but especially conservatives in the Republican Party. – Perhaps some delusional wishful thinking here. The Parties will become more ideologically defined and stress ethnic coalitions with a greater social purpose.” This week the Republican National Committee elected its first African American as chairman of the committee. Perceived as a moderate, he has a huge job set before him. Let us hope him well.
Well, these are a few of my initial thoughts. Others will follow.
In November I made several predictions about an Obama presidency. So far I was fairly on target. The following seem relevant to his efforts so far.
“Prediction #1: The transition will be nearly flawless. The fly in the ointment might be if Obama is perceived as acting as if he is already President especially in international economic affairs. Obama’s appointments will be diverse representatives of the sectors that elected him with more than one moderate Republicans in high positions. He will get off to a good start.”
I hit this nail on the head. His transition was nearly flawless. He took great care not to comment on international relations, frequently commenting on the fact that we only have one President at the time. On the other hand, on the economic crises he worked with Congress as if he was already President. The situation may have dictated his proactive involvement, but let us not ignore the fact he work with Congress on the formation of legislation as though he was already President. And in today’s economy that has everything to do with international relations.
“Prediction #2: Obama will keep many of his promises. With the support of a Democratically controlled congress, he will claim a mandate to push through his agenda. There will be a flurry of passed legislation. At the front will be commitments to energy and the environment. …”
He has hit the ground running with a focus on keeping his promises. He has apponinted several Republicans to high level positions. He has had extensive communicaton with the Republicans in Congress in an apparent effort to be bipartisan but he has reminded them that he won the election. I will not review all of his kept promises but a couple stand out. First, I applaud his quick actions on the environment especially raising the auto gas standards. I also approve of his push to allow states to set their own standards. As a conservative, I favor keeping government as responsive to the people as possible, i.e, a smaller federal government.
Second, while I didn’t include it on my list, elsewhere I predicted he would keep his promise and issue a Presidential order releasing American tax dollars to international groups to promote and pay for abortions in other countries, which he has done. I hold everyone who voted for Obama accountable for the resulting infanticide. Those who voted for him knew he had made this promise; their vote implicitly endorsed this action. I recognize this is a strong statement, but my statement pales in comparison to the impact of this action on the unborn and on their mothers. In many of the countries where these funds will be released it will not be the woman who makes the decision about aborting her unborn child. Time will tell if Obama’s other actions for good (there will be many) might mitigate against the impact of this evil. Perhaps he will be an instrument for life in other areas.
“Prediction #8: President Obama will excel in international relations except Islamic nations, Russia, and Latin America (which will be put off by his protectionism). In short, he will be phenomenal with our Western Allies and most of Africa; he will be less than stellar with our enemies, especially Islamic nations. This will seem strange to many given his unique connection with Islam. I truly hope I am wrong on this. He has the best personal gifts for diplomacy that I have seen in a political leader. (My problem is not his ability, but his direction.)”
It was a bold stroke to grant his first post-inauguration interview with an international, Islamic journalist. This was a significant preemptive diplomatic action. The appointment of Senator Mitchell as envoy to the Middle East was another wise action in his early days in office. On the other hand, his approval of continued military air strikes inside Pakistan (Prediction #10) suggests I might in the end be right on this one. He has not yet been tested with a crisis in the region to which he must respond.
Another promise he has kept is to initiate stricter ethics standards for his administration. It is to be applauded that he has forbidden the revolving door between lobbyist and administrative service. It is baffling that he would immediately nominate someone for high office for whom he must immediately issue a waiver to the standards he had just announced with fanfare. His pragmatic nature shines through.
On a parallel note I was apparently correct with “Prediction #12: The roll of minorities in American politics has been forever changed for the good. The days of the Caucasian, good-old-boys-club-in-power is over. Minorities will rise in leadership in both parties but especially conservatives in the Republican Party. – Perhaps some delusional wishful thinking here. The Parties will become more ideologically defined and stress ethnic coalitions with a greater social purpose.” This week the Republican National Committee elected its first African American as chairman of the committee. Perceived as a moderate, he has a huge job set before him. Let us hope him well.
Well, these are a few of my initial thoughts. Others will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)